"There is however a distinction between a procedural jurisdiction issue and an issue of substantial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in the case of A.G KWARA STATE & ANOR v. ADEYEMO & ORS (2016) LPELR-41147(SC) (Pp. 14-15, Paras. E-C) Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C., gave a comprehensive exposition of this distinction thus: "Jurisdiction is a question of law. There are two types of jurisdiction: 1. Jurisdiction as a matter of procedural Law 2. Jurisdiction as matter of substantive Law. A litigant may waive the former. For example a litigant may submit to a procedural jurisdiction of the Court where a writ of Summons has been served outside jurisdiction without leave or where a litigant (the defendant) waives compliance by the claimant of pre-action notice. No litigant can confer jurisdiction on the Court where the Constitution or Statute says that the Court does not have jurisdiction. Why is jurisdiction as a matter of procedural law allowed to be waived but not allowed in the case of substantive law. I gave two examples earlier on when jurisdiction in the former can be waived. I now explain. Section 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Law, provides for 30 days to serve process if the defendant is outside the jurisdiction of the Court. The purpose of a pre-action notice is to give the defendant, usually an agency of Government enough time to negotiate and reach settlement with the claimant, or decide whether it makes sense to submit to jurisdiction and go through a full bloom trial at great expense to resolve the issue in controversy. In both cases, 30 days for service of processes out of jurisdiction and the pre-action notice are for the benefit of the defendant. The position of the law is that where a statute gives a party a benefit he may waive it, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Court to hear the matter. Put in another way, conditions contained in a statute for the benefit of a person or class of persons can be waived by the person/s to benefit from it. See; Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) p. 255, Ezomo v. Oyakhire (1985) 1 SC p. 6, Nwabueze v. Okoye (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) p. 195. On the other hand where the right conferred by the Constitution or Statute involves an element of public policy, i.e. of interest to the public, such a right cannot be waived. See Ariori v. Elemo (1983) 14 NSCC p. 1." See: APC v. LAWRENCE & ORS (2018) LPELR-43662(CA); AG ONDO STATE & ORS v. OKITIPUPA OIL PALM PLC & ORS (2015) LPELR-25800 (CA); and ARUWAJU v. ASHARA (2014) LPELR-22735(CA). The key difference between the two forms of jurisdiction is that the issue of procedural jurisdiction can be waived, thus it must be raised at the earliest opportunity. In light of the facts of this appeal, Appellant's complaint as to the legal capacity of the 4th Respondent constituting a bar on the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower Court ought to have been raised at the trial Court, preferably by a preliminary objection. His failure to so do, therefore means that he is deemed to have waived it. See: KALU V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ORS (2012) LPELR-9287 (CA); and TALLEN & ORS v. JANG & ORS (2011) LPELR-9212(CA)." In AERO CONTRACTORS COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED v. MR. KINGSLEY OGUINE & ORS Suit No; CA/L/313/2014 Per TUKUR, J.C.A. (Pp. 22-25, Paras. D-B)
